NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could cure one disease in the world, which would you cure?

HIV/AIDS, no doubt.

Cancer

Now that's a tough choice... Malaria would be a contender, and HIV of course. It's a standoff.

Sin because it is the biggest disease of them all. Oh, and alcoholism. :P

Cancer. I would like nothing more than to see a world free from its horrendous grip once and for all. Seeing people suffer and slowly lose the battle against cancer is one of the saddest things I have ever seen in my life, and I would do anything to prevent it from happening again. Other diseases are surely as devastating, but cancer is worse because it does not hinge on a virus or infection but rather the body's own processes gone awry.

It's also why I plan on working in venture capital...even if I can't cure diseases on my own, I can provide the means for people to develop and market them.

If you could cure one disease in the world, which would you cure?The beliefs in the biblical god.

The beliefs of an atheist. ;)

The beliefs in the biblical god.

Sin because it is the biggest disease of them all. Oh, and alcoholism. :P

"Disease: Illness or sickness often characterized by typical patient problems (symptoms) and physical findings (signs)."

Alcohol poisininiing.

"Disease: Illness or sickness often characterized by typical patient problems (symptoms) and physical findings (signs). Disruption sequence: The events that occur when a fetus that is developing normally is subjected to a destructive agent such as the rubella (German measles) virus."And?

The beliefs in the biblical god.
Really dude. It's getting old.

I'd go with cancer. Not only because it's a horrible deisese, but because its something that we probably will never have a "cure" for. With cancer gone, a lot of resources would be freed up for finding cures for various viruses and such.

teh AIDS

And?

Doing unethical things is not in the definition, believing in the biblical God is not in the definition.

Humanity.

I demand a poll!

I demand a poll!

That's what she said.

That's what she said.

High five!

*slap*

Here is a really good psychological disease that needs to be rid of: intolerance.

Here is a really good psychological disease that needs to be rid of: intolerance.

Isn't that more of a disorder?

I'd go with cancer. Not only because it's a horrible deisese, but because its something that we probably will never have a "cure" for. With cancer gone, a lot of resources would be freed up for finding cures for various viruses and such.

Nope, we won't, just like we don't have a single cure for all infectious diseases. We'll have cures for cancers; the thing people most commonly misunderstand about cancer is that it's not all the same and that not all of them respond to the same treatment in the same way. Each one is really a different disease, operating in different ways and triggered or stopped by different methods.

Thankfully, we are now unraveling the causes of the various forms of cancer and finding new and varied treatments to stop them. Personally, I am optimistic of discovering ways to cure cancers within a decade, based upon current developments in the field, and then have the disease almost totally eradicated in at least the developed world within the next 20 years.

Doing unethical things is not in the definition, believing in the biblical God is not in the definition.Believing in the biblical god could be seen as a mental disease, couldn't it? As some kind of delusional state? And it's having a negative effect on millions, too.

Disease, disorder, same thing.

I hope United gets banned for being a jerk >_>.

A cure for cancer would be nice, a cure for HIV maybe too.

A cure for cancer would save so many lives. HIV is what people get for having unprotected sex... (I know better)

If you are going to rip on any body's beliefs, make sure you have an argument or you will sound like a complete moron. Or a Nazi.

Believing in the biblical god could be seen as a mental disease, couldn't it? As some kind of delusional state? And it's having a negative effect on millions, too.

Show me any medical psychological book that lists religion as a disorder and I'll agree with you. It's only a disorder if it's abnormal, it's not abnormal to be religious.

malaria

if "cure" can be taken to mean wiping it off the face of the earth so that no one ever gets it to begin with.

It is possible to eliminate malaria. During the construction of the Panama Canal, the disease was eliminated from Central America for a time.

Disease is necessary.

Curing it is idiocy.

it's not abnormal to be religious.and that's most unfortunate. btw do you really thing that something is right just because a large number of people does it? is 'normal' always good?

Disease is necessary.

Curing it is idiocy.So whose re-incarnation are you?

You are making absolutely no point with your discussions. Take it to another board.

The beliefs in the biblical god.

The beliefs of an atheist. ;)

Sin because it is the biggest disease of them all.

Real diseases please, not ideals or beliefs.

Disease is necessary.

Curing it is idiocy.

LOL

Disease is necessary.

Curing it is idiocy.

Because...?

Gotta give me something :)

Crohns because I am a selfish bitch.

stupidity....and hangovers.

Nope, we won't, just like we don't have a single cure for all infectious diseases. We'll have cures for cancers; the thing people most commonly misunderstand about cancer is that it's not all the same and that not all of them respond to the same treatment in the same way. Each one is really a different disease, operating in different ways and triggered or stopped by different methods.

Thankfully, we are now unraveling the causes of the various forms of cancer and finding new and varied treatments to stop them. Personally, I am optimistic of discovering ways to cure cancers within a decade, based upon current developments in the field, and then have the disease almost totally eradicated in at least the developed world within the next 20 years.

A very good point. I'm not that optimistic, though.

Disease is necessary.

Curing it is idiocy.

And speaking of idiocy...

Well, as in favor as I am of saving lives, I think my choice is obvious.

I'd cure the common cold. Which includes all varients of it.

A very good point. I'm not that optimistic, though.

My concern isn't so much that there won't be cures, but that the poor people of the developing world will be unable to afford them. Even with the excellent progress against poverty and the strong global economy, it will take a long time for the developing world to approach the OECD in economic terms, and that may mean a lot of people dying from diseases that could be cured if they were wealthier.

I guess cancer. Seems like that will continue to a major problem otherwise.

and that's most unfortunate. btw do you really thing that something is right just because a large number of people does it?

Irrelevant. You said it was a mental disease. It isn't. Now, if you were going on (as usual) about the philosophical or moral "rightness" of such belief, that'd be one thing, but here you were attempting to use psychology to dismiss religion wholesale, and it wasn't a very accurate or even amusing attempt.

Fail.

Seriously..

Believing in the/a biblical god can never be seen as a mental disease or as a kind of delusional state. Mainly because then you'd have to send every kid that has a imaginary friend to a mental hospital. I admit some people take religion way too far, but whatever suits them best...

And "normal isn't always good" why not? Why are people so "normal" if it isn't good for them? Why are people common? In the world where we live now, the fact that there is so little tolerance for peoples differences, being "abnormal" or being different could very well get your ass kicked, or if you're lucky and live in the states, get yourself killed.

"And it's having a negative effect on millions, too." You mean jidah and other stuff like that? Or are you just stupid?


(waaay off-topic but.. meh)

Crohns because I am a selfish bitch.

:D

Really are more deserving disease out there though.

I'll go with Influenza.

:D

Really are more deserving disease out there though.

I'll go with Influenza.

when someone I love gets one of those I will probably change my mind.

I could have picked my disease, but it doesn't suck bad enough, I mean it's controllable with just a mild amount of insanity.......okay, a ton of crap, but still, I can get better if I just live my life in a completely anal retentive way.

... Personally, I am optimistic ...
Really? What else is new?
Almost too bad they can't cure sarcasm, isn't it?

Potshots aside: Would addiction count as a disease? I don't mean in the Prohibitionist-sense of curing addiction by banning everything fun, but in the more fun, possibly less ethical sense of letting people enjoy whatever drugs they want without the longterm side-effects.

I could have picked my disease, but it doesn't suck bad enough, I mean it's controllabl e with just a mild amount of insanity.......okay, a ton ofcrap, but still, I can get bettaer if I just live my life in a completely anl retentive way.

Hah! It took me a second to realise that you weren't talking about Crohn's any more.

A cure for Crohn's is considered almost inevitable among specialists so you may get your wish one day :)

Idiocy.

Elephantitis

Hah! It took me a second to realise that you weren't talking about Crohn's any more.

A cure for Crohn's is considered almost inevitable among specialists so you may get your wish one day :)

if they figure it out before my husband dies, that will be good. ;)

Disease is necessary.

Curing it is idiocy.

The irony........it burns

A cure for cancer would save so many lives. HIV is what people get for having unprotected sex... (I know better)

If you are going to rip on any body's beliefs, make sure you have an argument or you will sound like a complete moron. Or a Nazi.

and if you are are going to make a statement like that..better think twice and get your facts straight before you sound like a complete moron.

Disease, disorder, same thing.

I hope United gets banned for being a jerk >_>.

I hope not. Your answer "sin" was as offensive as his.

*snip* HIV is what people get for having unprotected sex... (I know better)


That is ONE way to get it, yes... there ARE others. Do you know how to avoid them too??

*edit* I see Damaske beat me to it.

AIDS, mainly because it's the one we'll never, ever cure.

If we go around curing serious diseases we do nothing but damage ourselves in the long-run.

Short-term, oh yeh, perfect, let's all be selfish and go around curing everything.

Long-term we begin to eat away at all our resources, overpopulation starts to kick in, humanity spreads and the World slowly decays.

If we go around curing serious diseases we do nothing but damage ourselves in the long-run.

Short-term, oh yeh, perfect, let's all be selfish and go around curing everything.

Long-term we begin to eat away at all our resources, overpopulation starts to kick in, humanity spreads and the World slowly decays.

Curing diseases (particularly HIV) = higher living standards in Third World = less poverty = stagnant birth rates.

There ya go.

I would have to go with curing HIV as well.

AIDS is the obvious answer, but if I was being purely selfish I'd say Alzheimer's, so I wouldn't have to keep watching lives destroyed by it.

Does Cancer count?

If not, then HIV/AIDS, or Malaria....Influenza? The "common cold"? (those thousands of different viruses count as one right? :p)

<i>"Curing diseases (particularly HIV) = higher living standards in Third World = less poverty = stagnant birth rates"</i>

Though people would be breeding slower, they'd be living longer and having more children.

Disease is still the most efficient population manager.

Somebody said they'd cure Alzheimer's, which is probably one of the few diseases i'd make exception too, as it effects you later on in life and thus curing it wouldn't really have an adverse effect on society/the world.

In fact, it would probably help take the strain off the NHS/Carers.

I think disease on a whole, though, is needed with Humanity. We already bypass natural selection and other natural ways of population control, we need something to keep our numbers in check.

Uh...HIV I guess. It has no cure and malaria can be easily prevented unlike HIV. Yes, a condom can stop it (usually), but you can't expect people to use them all the time, especially in poor countries.

Baldness.

No one should have to go bald.

Baldness.

No one should have to go bald.I'd rather be bald than have long hair...Besides baldness is more environmentally friendly :D


Back on topic...I'd cure people who want to cure stuff like 'intolerance' and 'discrimination' because that mentality is the one needing the curing: I'm not intolerant, therefore intolerants should be 'cured'....while having no problems pointing at a person and saying 'that's one ugly thin/fat person'

...alternatively I'd cure what someone already proposed: Humanity...

I would cure cancer because HIV/AIDS could technically be wiped out in a generation if humans would just cooperate. But cancer...cancer is sneaky.

.
Long-term we begin to eat away at all our resources, overpopulation starts to kick in, humanity spreads and the World slowly decays.

Except for the fact that productivity grows faster than the world population, which means we can meet growing demand with little or no change in resource consumption. And as a country develops, its growth rate slows, and productivity growth accelerates thanks to technological advances, which in turn means they end up with little growth in resource consumption but continued gains in living standards and GDP.

That's why Malthus was so utterly wrong...he failed to take productivity and efficiency gains in to account.

Except for the fact that productivity grows faster than the world population, which means we can meet growing demand with little or no change in resource consumption. And as a country develops, its growth rate slows, and productivity growth accelerates thanks to technological advances, which in turn means they end up with little growth in resource consumption but continued gains in living standards and GDP.

That's why Malthus was so utterly wrong...he failed to take productivity and efficiency gains in to account.

Interesting, there is a book coming out about how we broke out of the Malthusian Trap. I believe it is called a Farewell to Alms.

Fuckin' Erectile Dysfunction, so I don't have to see another one of those goddamn commercials ever again.

Fuckin' Erectile Dysfunction, so I don't have to see another one of those goddamn commercials ever again.

"Viva Viagra!"

1. Cancer
2. Cancer
3. Cancer
.
.
.
.
8. Diabetes
9. Malaria
10. Lyme disease

Alzheimer's
Influenza
Cold

And maybe a few others I'm not thinking about right now.

Hiv/aids All The Way!!!!

"Except for the fact that productivity grows faster than the world population, which means we can meet growing demand with little or no change in resource consumption. And as a country develops, its growth rate slows, and productivity growth accelerates thanks to technological advances, which in turn means they end up with little growth in resource consumption but continued gains in living standards and GDP"

Again, you're seeing the short-term. Eventually humans would start to close the gap. Besides, just because productivity is faster, doesn't necessarily mean we'd be comfortable as we grow in size. ...China, for instance.

Besides, Humanity is vile. The fewer of us there are, the better, in my opinion. And all the Doctors frolicking around trying to cure Cancer all need to be shot. ...or just told to stop.

...preferably shot.

Cancer is probably my #1.

I think # 2 would be AIDS.

Idiocy.

Damn, I thought no one beat me to it.

Malaria, I guess. or migraine

Again, you're seeing the short-term. Eventually humans would start to close the gap. Besides, just because productivity is faster, doesn't necessarily mean we'd be comfortable as we grow in size. ...China, for instance.

Short term? I'd say the past 500 years is a pretty strong indication that the trend isn't going to stop any time soon, especially considering we've shiftedour economy from agricultural to industrial to knowledge-based and that means fewer raw materials needed to generate economic output. And it also doesn't take in to account the fact that population growth slows as people become wealthier; they have fewer kids, so even if more people are alive, the population still increases at a slower and slower rate.

Even if we had a death rate of zero, which is of course impossible, a world birthrate that declines to a level as low as Russia's would only increase population by 1% per year, still slower than the current world population growth rate. That's an extreme case, but not impossible by any stretch.

Besides, Humanity is vile. The fewer of us there are, the better, in my opinion. And all the Doctors frolicking around trying to cure Cancer all need to be shot. ...or just told to stop.

...preferably shot.

That's your opinion.

Multiple Sclerosis

"Short term? I'd say the past 500 years is a pretty strong indication that the trend isn't going to stop any time soon"

Wouldn't disease account for that?

Besides, if you then get rid of HIV and AIDs, you have more people having unprotected sex, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies.

Then you have the Religious who don't believe in contraception.

I think as soon as we start dabbling with nature in a serious way, we begin to screw ourselves over. It's all very well saying 'Oh, well history has proven this', but Humanity is worryingly destructive and selfish, as well as blind to it's own idiocy.

Still, by rights my hatred for Humanity should have me encouraging disease eradication, but meh.

As has been said before, cancer, due to the fact that HIV/AIDS can be destroyed easily, as long as humanity can rise above... idiocy.

Cancer

I'd cure the common cold, just so I could go down in the record books as the man who destroyed a cliché.

If stupidity counts, I pick that, because humanity has a serious case that could be terminal.